What is with the constant mistreatment of the Garlean story?(6.1 Patch spoilers)

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

With all due respect, the players aren't "inventing" anything. They are using readily available terminology to interpret what is happening. Now you can argue whether a murder is justified, and that is obviously a moral judgement (and depending on how you go about it, could be an instance of virtue signalling), but in and of itself, one does not need the story or the writers to use the word to arrive at the conclusion that that's how the action is to be described, i.e. the intention behind and consequences of the action, which is how these terms are defined. Just because it's a fictional scenario doesn't mean you can't apply the terms in that descriptive way...

I mean, by your logic, garlean were commuting genocide and atrocities on the people and beast tribes they were invading, and the ascians wanted to commit genocide on all living things across 14 worlds.

[Lauront]

I mean, by your logic, garlean were commuting genocide and atrocities on the people and beast tribes they were invading, and the ascians wanted to commit genocide on all living things across 14 worlds.

I'm not aware of anyone disputing that - much as we can lay such terms on Ul'dah, which made use of the concept of a beast tribe to benefit its own ventures, or indeed Hydaelyn, who as per the Q&A, allowed Emet-Selch to escape, knowing what would result from that once she sundered the world...